The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

[Apollo]

Here's a question for you all, and this came to me after reading how the agents are leading this PA rebellion against Billy Hunter... The owners are not allowed to talk to the players. In fact Jordan had to avoid Deron Williams at a charity golf outing even though basketball was probably the last thing on their minds while they were out hitting the links and supporting a cause. To take it further, owners aren't even allowed to mention players' names or talk freely about the negotiations period. I'm sure you all have heard about the $100K fine that Jordan got earlier this week for mentioning the negotiations and using Andrew Bogut in an example scenario to explain his view. That said, are the agents free to talk to the players and the owners right now? If they are, then it bring a lot of things into question.

[slaw]

The players need to stop this now. This is going to end bad for them, I can see it coming...

How is it going to get any worse than the current proposal from the owners? I do agree though that the current negotiating tactics of the union are not going to get the players where they want to be. It's clear the owners are prepared to sit out for a year or more to get a hard cap and that, eventually, they will get it. So, to my mind, the only way the players can avoid their fate is to completely change the game and decertify the union. Throw the league into absolute chaos and uncertainty and maybe a few owners get scared by the ramnifications of losing the court battle and having a free-for-all NBA.

One other point, anyone who is comparing the salaries of NBA players to teachers and secreatries does not know the first thing about economics and, further, lacks even the most basic common sense. You can safely ignore anyone making that argument out of hand.

[slaw]

Here's a question for you all, and this came to me after reading how the agents are leading this PA rebellion against Billy Hunter... The owners are not allowed to talk to the players. In fact Jordan had to avoid Deron Williams at a charity golf outing even though basketball was probably the last thing on their minds while they were out hitting the links and supporting a cause. To take it further, owners aren't even allowed to mention players' names or talk freely about the negotiations period. I'm sure you all have heard about the $100K fine that Jordan got earlier this week for mentioning the negotiations and using Andrew Bogut in an example scenario to explain his view. That said, are the agents free to talk to the players and the owners right now? If they are, then it bring a lot of things into question.

I understand that NBA personnel are prohibited from communicating with agents.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/69...1-million-fine

One other point, if you go back to the MLB labour wars a lot of the actual deal-making was done at informal lunches and dinners where people would get together informally and hash out issues. Taking that off the table further enforces my opinion that the owners don't really want a negotiated deal, they just want the players to cave and will keep them locked out until they get what they want.

[Apollo]

How is it going to get any worse than the current proposal from the owners? I do agree though that the current negotiating tactics of the union are not going to get the players where they want to be. It's clear the owners are prepared to sit out for a year or more to get a hard cap and that, eventually, they will get it. So, to my mind, the only way the players can avoid their fate is to completely change the game and decertify the union. Throw the league into absolute chaos and uncertainty and maybe a few owners get scared by the ramnifications of losing the court battle and having a free-for-all NBA.

One other point, anyone who is comparing the salaries of NBA players to teachers and secreatries does not know the first thing about economics and, further, lacks even the most basic common sense. You can safely ignore anyone making that argument out of hand.

How? The union is crumbling as we speak. They are showing great weakness now, and we're talking almost two months before the season. Just wait until February once players have missed numerous car and house payments and "Mr. J.P.Morgan" comes knocking accompanied by some delightful gentlemen and an foreclosure notice. I know things can get worse for the players because I know history, I know poker and I know negotiation tactics. The players aren't desperate now. If they let this continue until they are desperate they will agree to something inferior to this. Use the last NHL negotiations as a case study. All you need to know about extended labor agreement disputes is in there.

[Matt52]

How is it going to get any worse than the current proposal from the owners? I do agree though that the current negotiating tactics of the union are not going to get the players where they want to be. It's clear the owners are prepared to sit out for a year or more to get a hard cap and that, eventually, they will get it. So, to my mind, the only way the players can avoid their fate is to completely change the game and decertify the union. Throw the league into absolute chaos and uncertainty and maybe a few owners get scared by the ramnifications of losing the court battle and having a free-for-all NBA.

One other point, anyone who is comparing the salaries of NBA players to teachers and secreatries does not know the first thing about economics and, further, lacks even the most basic common sense. You can safely ignore anyone making that argument out of hand.

The issue the players have to face with a decertification is the $4 billion in guaranteed salaries that could possibly be voided. Another possibility might be the owners could go through their roster player by player, contract by contract, and void the ones they deem undesirable.

As for the bolded section, comparing average workers to average NBA players - absolutely. But when using superstar NBA players versus average players and then using the analogy of highly paid professions versus average workers, the point in my opinion is relevant and valid. The majority of average NBA players are like the scavenger fish hanging out around the shark's mouth for scraps (star NBA players are the sharks). I would be more than willing to consider alternatives rather than an indirect insult. Possible enlightenment or a different perspective is always appreciated.

EDIT: Actually my post to Joey shows where the comparison of the two came in. I've been rushing a lot lately in posts because with a young family that is now running around everywhere, time is scarce. I apologize for the confusion.

The comparison between the two (average workers versus average NBA players) should have compared the average to the top of respective 'class'. For example the doctor makes $400K per year is making 10x that of the average whereas the star NBA player making around $20M is making around 10x that of the average.

For me this all comes back to the average NBA player is not worth $3M plus per season. The middle NBA players are the one's fighting for their extra few million per season that I feel they don't deserve - all my opinion.

[stretch]

Thanks to previous posters for the in depth analysis of the very complex talks that will determine the future of the league. Correct me if I'm wrong but here is my simplified summary of what is taking place:

The players want the status quo of recent agreements with the soft cap, mid level exceptions, Bird rights, etc. and are even prepared to take a slight cut in their share of revenues.

The owners are adamant in getting a long term deal with a hard cap in place. The hard cap will put an end to big market roster stacking a la Lakers and Mavs and promote competitive balance and parity which will theoretically help distribute revenues more to small market teams. The owners are willing to pay the stars but are trying to put the squeeze on the players that fill out the rosters, veterans with the mid level exceptions, rookies, etc. Last season's Miami Heat are a glimpse into future of this kind of roster.

What is a revelation to me is that the Raptors are in fact a big market team, 5th highest in revenues according to ESPN, and stand to lose in a big way (in profits) with revenue sharing.

[Apollo]

Solid take. The small owners want revenue sharing, the big market teams obviously don't want it. The players want it because they know the profits from the big markets divvied up equal amongst all the teams would allow all teams to stay afloat. I agree with the players that revenue sharing would settle a lot of problems. I also can appreciate why the owners of successful clubs won't go for it. In such a scheme the successful owners are penalized for being successful. That ain't happening and so all the owners can collectively agree that taking the money needed by the small time clubs from the players to balance the books seems about right.

[slaw]

The hard cap will put an end to big market roster stacking a la Lakers and Mavs and promote competitive balance and parity which will theoretically help distribute revenues more to small market teams.

This is the owners' argument that makes me laugh the loudest. Will it work just like in the NHL? Look at the great shape all of the small market teams are in after the hard cap was implemented. With success stories like Phoenix, Florida, New Jersey, Atlanta, NYI, Columbus, Dallas, etc. to point to, I can't imagine how anyone could possibly think a hard cap system doesn't work. All of the NBA's problems will be fixed and every year, 30 teams will vie for the NBA title. The players are just big poopyheads for not rolling over and agreeing to whatever the owners want.

[Employee]

This is the owners' argument that makes me laugh the loudest. Will it work just like in the NHL? Look at the great shape all of the small market teams are in after the hard cap was implemented. With success stories like Phoenix, Florida, New Jersey, Atlanta, NYI, Columbus, Dallas, etc. to point to, I can't imagine how anyone could possibly think a hard cap system doesn't work. All of the NBA's problems will be fixed and every year, 30 teams will vie for the NBA title. The players are just big poopyheads for not rolling over and agreeing to whatever the owners want.

Right, so you think it's cool that one team in the NBA can spend $50 mil and another $100? How is that ever gonna make things fair? I think it's a nice change than having the Red Wings in the finals every year.

[Apollo]

This is the owners' argument that makes me laugh the loudest. Will it work just like in the NHL? Look at the great shape all of the small market teams are in after the hard cap was implemented. With success stories like Phoenix, Florida, New Jersey, Atlanta, NYI, Columbus, Dallas, etc. to point to, I can't imagine how anyone could possibly think a hard cap system doesn't work. All of the NBA's problems will be fixed and every year, 30 teams will vie for the NBA title. The players are just big poopyheads for not rolling over and agreeing to whatever the owners want.

Yes, and suddenly the emphasis is on developing in house talent and making smart business decisions as opposed to the small market team having an emphasis on developing in house talent so that the big market teams can then turn around and overpay for said talent... Or force the small markets into spending an irresponsible amount to retain the player because they don't want to let the fans down and hurt their gate numbers. Honestly, the way the NBA is set up right now, ten to fifteen clubs are essentially farm teams to the big six or seven teams.

[Matt52]

Yes, and suddenly the emphasis is on developing in house talent and making smart business decisions as opposed to the small market team having an emphasis on developing in house talent so that the big market teams can then turn around and overpay for said talent... Or force the small markets into spending an irresponsible amount to retain the player because they don't want to let the fans down and hurt their gate numbers. Honestly, the way the NBA is set up right now, ten to fifteen clubs are essentially farm teams to the big six or seven teams.

Expo-esque.

[slaw]

Right, so you think it's cool that one team in the NBA can spend $50 mil and another $100? How is that ever gonna make things fair? I think it's a nice change than having the Red Wings in the finals every year.

We just have very different perspectives on this topic. In fact, I suspect my views are at odds with almost everyone on this board. I have no issue with one team spending $200 million and another spending $35. Don't care. It's likely my baseball bias showing. Everyone talks about how "unfair" MLB is, yet, since the introduction of the cap in the NBA 9 teams have won championships and, in that same time frame, 17 different teams have won the World Series.

I guess I have two views that differ from most. First, I am philosophically opposed to collectives mandating what individuals can make and how they can operate. Second, unlike most, I don't believe a hard cap is going to make a lick of difference in terms of creating parity or "fairness" in the NBA. The nature of basketball is that the team with the best player on the floor wins. If you don't have a superstar, you simply have no chance. That's been true for 50 years in teh NBA and a hard cap won't change it.

People object that small market teams simply serve as farm teams for the top organizations and have no chance. Yet, in the last 25years, San Antonio and Detroit have won multiple NBA titles while the Knicks have won zero. Some say it sucks because teams only have great players for short periods of time and then they leave... well, what exactly do you think is going to happen in a hard cap system? Your team will have an even shorter window to succeed because all of your supporting players will be too expensive to re-sign. Your team's margin for error will be even smaller than it is now. Also, bear in mind, you can't legislate players taking less money. If I am a player deciding between 3 teams, all of which can only offer me "X", I am going to consider other factors more than money. These miscellaneous factors will all benefit all the large market teams.

There will, of course, be other unintended consequences we can't foresee yet. Will it be a better system than the current one? Maybe. Or maybe it will simply be different. Does anyone seriously think the Lakers and Celtics won't be more attractive than Minnesota? Does anyone seriously believe that players won't want to go play with Kevin Durant or Kobe Bryant? Yes, it will prevent the rich teams from "stacking" a team but it won't prevent them (and their terrific management teams) from getting the best players and it won't make Donald Sterling or Robert Sarver care about winning more than money.

[Matt52]

We just have very different perspectives on this topic. In fact, I suspect my views are at odds with almost everyone on this board. I have no issue with one team spending $200 million and another spending $35. Don't care. It's likely my baseball bias showing. Everyone talks about how "unfair" MLB is, yet, since the introduction of the cap in the NBA 9 teams have won championships and, in that same time frame, 17 different teams have won the World Series.

I guess I have two views that differ from most. First, I am philosophically opposed to collectives mandating what individuals can make and how they can operate. Second, unlike most, I don't believe a hard cap is going to make a lick of difference in terms of creating parity or "fairness" in the NBA. The nature of basketball is that the team with the best player on the floor wins. If you don't have a superstar, you simply have no chance. That's been true for 50 years in teh NBA and a hard cap won't change it.

People object that small market teams simply serve as farm teams for the top organizations and have no chance. Yet, in the last 25years, San Antonio and Detroit have won multiple NBA titles while the Knicks have won zero. Some say it sucks because teams only have great players for short periods of time and then they leave... well, what exactly do you think is going to happen in a hard cap system? Your team will have an even shorter window to succeed because all of your supporting players will be too expensive to re-sign. Your team's margin for error will be even smaller than it is now. Also, bear in mind, you can't legislate players taking less money. If I am a player deciding between 3 teams, all of which can only offer me "X", I am going to consider other factors more than money. These miscellaneous factors will all benefit all the large market teams.

There will, of course, be other unintended consequences we can't foresee yet. Will it be a better system than the current one? Maybe. Or maybe it will simply be different. Does anyone seriously think the Lakers and Celtics won't be more attractive than Minnesota? Does anyone seriously believe that players won't want to go play with Kevin Durant or Kobe Bryant? Yes, it will prevent the rich teams from "stacking" a team but it won't prevent them (and their terrific management teams) from getting the best players and it won't make Donald Sterling or Robert Sarver care about winning more than money.

Good points.

Regardless of the system (hard cap, soft cap, no cap) good management and a little luck will always find a way to win in whatever environment.

[slaw]

Yes, and suddenly the emphasis is on developing in house talent and making smart business decisions as opposed to the small market team having an emphasis on developing in house talent so that the big market teams can then turn around and overpay for said talent... Or force the small markets into spending an irresponsible amount to retain the player because they don't want to let the fans down and hurt their gate numbers. Honestly, the way the NBA is set up right now, ten to fifteen clubs are essentially farm teams to the big six or seven teams.

Yes, and suddenly the emphasis is on getting the most out of in house talent as fast as possible before you have to let them walk away for a bag of balls when their cap hit is too high and you need to replace Amir Johnson with Menghe Bateer to stay under the cap.

Fixed it for you....

[Employee]

People object that small market teams simply serve as farm teams for the top organizations and have no chance. Yet, in the last 25years, San Antonio and Detroit have won multiple NBA titles while the Knicks have won zero. Some say it sucks because teams only have great players for short periods of time and then they leave... well, what exactly do you think is going to happen in a hard cap system? Your team will have an even shorter window to succeed because all of your supporting players will be too expensive to re-sign. Your team's margin for error will be even smaller than it is now. Also, bear in mind, you can't legislate players taking less money. If I am a player deciding between 3 teams, all of which can only offer me "X", I am going to consider other factors more than money. These miscellaneous factors will all benefit all the large market teams.

I hear where ya coming from. But I really don't think this point is valid. First off the no one but the players say current 'cap' is working. Originally it was thought that it would curtail spending but all it did was prove that you have to spend even more to win. And I don't like the example of using San Antonio. We've all heard it before. Considering their budget it is THE best run team in basketball. Basically you have to be infallible in your business decisions, and drafting two #1 overall picks really helps too. It's not realistic for small market teams. The Celtics, Lakers, Mavs etc can afford to make mistakes and basically buy new players. Small market teams don't have that luxury.

As far as the window being even shorter, we can't really make that call yet. If they get rid of the Bird rights and/or introduce some kind of franchise tag it will completely change the playing field.

[Apollo]

Yes, and suddenly the emphasis is on getting the most out of in house talent as fast as possible before you have to let them walk away for a bag of balls when their cap hit is too high and you need to replace Amir Johnson with Menghe Bateer to stay under the cap.

Fixed it for you....

Slaw, the thing about this hard cap setup is that there are no guaranteed contracts. If Amir Johnson is so important to the club then they can "trim the fat" elsewhere to make room for him. There is also the point that for a club to be consistently good for a long stretch they need to be able to continuously place a high emphasis on the draft and player development. Not to mention that fact that all teams in the league would be in the same boat. I can tell you something else. In the NFL for example, the teams who typically stay good for long stretches do it through the draft. You rarely see a team like the Patriots go out and drop a huge contract on a UFA. They don't need to because they scout well, draft well, pluck excellent prospects from other teams via small trades and occasionally roll the dice on a player fallen on hard times. It works for them and that model would work in the NBA. In a hard cap system there is only so much money to go around so don't immediately come to the conclusion that contracts are going to be outrageous like they are right now.

Which problem is better, working in a system where big markets can grow their cap number to huge sums and the maintain that number and thus gain an unfair advantage or being in a system where everyone is on even ground but there is the possibility that sometime down the road a tough roster choice may have to be made if you happen to be blessed with good management who have created a top tier roster?

Your team will have an even shorter window to succeed because all of your supporting players will be too expensive to re-sign. Your team's margin for error will be even smaller than it is now. Also, bear in mind, you can't legislate players taking less money. If I am a player deciding between 3 teams, all of which can only offer me "X", I am going to consider other factors more than money. These miscellaneous factors will all benefit all the large market teams.

Is a "shorter window to succeed" better than no window to succeed? I'll take any window over a brick wall. This all comes back to drafting good players and developing them. The Raptors have a good track record in the draft and player development. In a hard cap system you won't see role players getting bloated contracts often. Those who do can be cut without much in the way of consequences. You will see the money in a hard cap system going mostly to the stars.

[Apollo]

One more thought on the hard cap thing. In a hard cap system you will rarely see players demand a trade or exploit the system to get a max contract on any team they want to play for in the league via a S&T. I think you'll see the whole S&T nonsense disappear. I also think you'll see this whole "I'm a big star so I have to play in a big market" thing disappear. Seriously, you don't see this shit in football, baseball or hockey. It's a "culture thing", blah, blah, blah. No, it's a market thing and in a hard capped market this crap ends. Players will sign for the money or in a place where a shot at a title is high. No longer will that be perceived as in a "big market" because those big markets will no longer be able to spend twice as much as some teams. They also won't be able to take on bloated contracts in one-sided cap dump trades.

[slaw]

One more thought on the hard cap thing. In a hard cap system you will rarely see players demand a trade or exploit the system to get a max contract on any team they want to play for in the league via a S&T. I think you'll see the whole S&T nonsense disappear. I also think you'll see this whole "I'm a big star so I have to play in a big market" thing disappear. Seriously, you don't see this shit in football, baseball or hockey. It's a "culture thing", blah, blah, blah. No, it's a market thing and in a hard capped market this crap ends. Players will sign for the money or in a place where a shot at a title is high. No longer will that be perceived as in a "big market" because those big markets will no longer be able to spend twice as much as some teams. They also won't be able to take on bloated contracts in one-sided cap dump trades.

The Sign and trade concept only works in a system with a soft cap and exceptions, so, yeah, you won't see it cause it's nonsensical in a hard cap system.

Agreed, in no other league does a player prefer to play in a big market or hold out or exploit the system for more money. In the NFL, for example, I can only think of Chris Johnson, Eli Manning, John Elway, Bo Jackson, Walter Jones, Emmit Smith, Cornelius Bennett, JaMarcus Russell, Darrelle Revis, John Riggins, Sean Gilbert, Jerry Rice and Mike Singletary... just a few guys of the top of my head. Have I missed two or three hundred?

But maybe you're right, the NFL is a bad example. I am sure that once the hard cap system is in place great players will flock to teams with capspace just like in the NHL. Just look at all the free agents clamouring to go to Edmonton. I am sure that the Atlanta players grumbling about having to play in Winnipeg (for the exact same money) will quickly learn to love the 'Peg over Atlanta. After all, there's no difference playing in either city now that there's a hard cap.

[Matt52]

I disagree with the very last line but other than that......

How A Hard Cap Saves The NBA

Just when it sounded like cooler heads might prevail and we might actually get this lock-out thing over with this week, the NBA owners took a step back in negotiations yesterday. Now a hard salary cap is back on the table, which the players quickly stepped away from.

For those of you who care more about the game than the business of the NBA (a group that usually includes Yours Truly), here’s what we’re talking about. Last season the NBA salary cap was set right around $58 million. Sounds like a lot of money, but when you consider that there was no penalty for spending more until you hit roughly the $70 million figure (the luxury tax threshold), things start to get stupid. Teams who spend more than the luxury tax pay a dollar-for-dollar tax to the league, which splits the proceeds up amongst the teams who were not over the cap.

What this has done is – in a nutshell – create a class system in the NBA. The rich teams who play in major media markets or have owners who will spend any amount of money to win are consistently among the ranks of contenders, while the teams that follow the rules are generally known as the lottery teams. Sure, there are exceptions, like the Oklahoma City Thunder, but let’s see what their cap looks like when Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka and company come off of their very affordable rookie deals. The rest of the time we’re talking about teams like the Los Angeles Lakers, Dallas Mavericks, Orlando Magic, Miami HEAT, Boston Celtics, Chicago Bulls and San Antonio Spurs – teams who treat that $58 million number as if it doesn’t exist.

That brings us back around to the question of why a hard cap is good for the NBA and good for the vast majority of its teams. First and foremost, it puts teams like the Milwaukee Bucks, Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves, and the 19 other teams who lost money last season back on an even footing with the Mavericks, Lakers and Spurs. Not that it isn’t fun watching the Lakers buy the best team in basketball year after year, but wouldn’t it be nice to see the rest of the teams get some postseason love?

I don’t think I was the only one who was happy to see newcomers like the Memphis Grizzlies and Oklahoma City Thunder in the NBA’s Final Four last year. It’s nice to have some new blood once in a while.

That’s what the hard cap is all about. It’s about allowing the Indiana Pacers, who have to sell out four home games to get the same revenue the Lakers get from one home game, to compete on an even playing field with LA.

Whether or not you’re a fan of the Lakers, Pacers, or any other team, that has to be a good thing. It’s good for the game, it’s good for the teams, and it’s great for fans. It will take a major restructuring of almost every team’s salary base to make a hard cap happen, but in this reporter’s opinion it would be well worth the work. What’s more, if every team lived under the salary cap every team in the NBA would be wildly profitable . . .and there would never be another lockout.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-pm-pho...d-in-minnesota

[joey_hesketh]

Lol. slaw. Tongue firmly in cheek, is it?

I personally don't think a Hard Cap will fix everything. The teams that choose to only spend $40M are still only going to spend $40M.

One thing I'm not sure on though is, like the NFL, if contracts are made non-guarenteed, then you better expect there to be Performance bonuses. Whats to stop a team thats nearing the Cap, from offering a low-ball contract (that fits the cap), and then offer the rest in Minor Performance Goals? I know the NBA doesn't do that now, but I would expect the players to fight for such things if they end up giving-in on the Hard Cap.